Posts must include justice-- don't stray away from the theme. Fakes and posts without sufficient backstories will be removed. It should be a clear display of justice. Self posts are for meta discussion, not for telling justice stories.

NO requests to the community for help in bringing justice to someone or something. We do not incite witch hunts.

Oh I know what he was trying to do but I think anyone who isn't a complete dildo would've read those jokes and said "damn, maybe joking about smothering the guy with ALS is a little too harsh for radio".

It kind of reminds me of Micheal Richards yelling "nigger" that one time. He was just trying to be edgy and funny too but you can't just put something like that out there if you aren't actually a funny person who can tie it all together.

No, Michael Richards didn't yell nigger because he was trying to be edgy. He was yelling nigger because he completely lost his temper and patience with a rude audience member. (I don't condone what Michael Richards did BTW, because of where his mind was at when he was yelling nigger on stage)

It isn't fair to compare the two incidents when one (Michael Richards) was done out of exasperation and anger and the other (this ALS story) was done trying to be funny.

You also can't try to qualify one off-color joke as being OK if the person saying it is able to "tie things together", but another joke isn't because the person is unfunny. Both of the people making the joke were hoping for the same outcome. One just happens to get the response they wanted while the other didn't.

Were the jokes pretty harsh for terrestrial radio? Yea they were. Should these guys lose their job because of this? Absolutely not.

You're totally wrong about Richards. Listen closely to Richards' words. This was a misfired thing he did, but it definitely wasn't a racist rant; he was playing on what's "in there" (his words in the "rant") in a certain basic kind of available understanding. He was trying to do something that didn't work, but it wasn't as simple as you think.

Listen to the tone of Richards' voice. That isn't a man trying to be funny; That is a man who is obviously angry and is yelling like a mad man. The words in his rant make no difference when the tone and anger behind them is so apparent. That is where, like I said before, I draw the line.

Yeah he was upset, but he was also playing on it. It was a bit of a mess/mixture of both a reflective thing and his reaction, but his words do have some play in it as well. Partly, his reflection on it, while keeping the emotional heat, adds to the other side of this (the side you don't want to allow): in a way, he's also saying that, yes, people can be genuinely angering, and that plays into the racial epithet. It's one thing to keep that at a distance, another to draw that into question in the heat of a difficult interaction. So I think the emotional content doesn't automatically obviate, despite how you wish to draw lines.